Allahabad High Court

KARTAR SINGH @ KAUSHAL BHARTIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 13 OTHERS

Decided: 11 March 2026
Bench: PRAKASH PADIA

Holding

The High Court directed the lower court to decide the pending restoration application within four weeks, emphasizing expeditious disposal and limiting unnecessary adjournments.

Summary

The petitioner, Kartar Singh @ Kaushal Bharti, filed a writ petition seeking direction for the speedy disposal of a restoration application pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Etmadpur, under Section 209(h) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The restoration application, filed on 13 March 2024, remains undecided despite a considerable lapse of time. The petitioner argued that the delay violates the principle of expeditious justice. The Court observed that putting the respondents on notice would serve no useful purpose given the nature of the order sought. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the lower court to decide the restoration application within four weeks, barring unnecessary adjournments unless a legal impediment exists. The order also reserves the right of any aggrieved party to seek modification or variation of the directive.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in deciding the restoration application under Section 209(h) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 violates the petitioner's right to speedy justice.
Whether the High Court should direct the lower court to dispose of the pending application within a specific time frame.

Legislation cited

U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 209(h)

Subjects

restoration application
U.P. Revenue Code
Section 209(h)
expeditious disposal
adjournment
writ petition

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 5733 of 2026

Kartar Singh @ Kaushal Bharti
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 13 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Priyavrat Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shyam
Mani Shukla

Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the respondent-State, Sri Shyam Mani
Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and
perused the record.

2. In view of the order proposed to be passed herein,
no useful purpose would be served by putting the
respondent/respondents to notice and keeping this
petition pending before this Court. However, in case
the respondent/respondents feels aggrieved by the
order his/her right to seek modification/variation of
the order is being kept reserved.

3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that a
restoration application was filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 13.03.2024 passed by
respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Etmadpur,
Mandal Agra, District Agra under Section 209 (h) of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in Case No.10128 of
2025, Computerized Case No.T202501010310128,
which is pending consideration though a considerable
time has already been lapsed but till date no final
decision has been taken in the matter.
WRIC No. 5733 of 2026
2

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
present petition is disposed of directing the court
concerned to decide the aforesaid application strictly
in accordance with law most expeditiously and
preferably within a period of four weeks but without
granting unnecessary adjournment unless there is no
legal impediment.
March 12, 2026
Pramod Tripathi

(Prakash Padia,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
PRAMOD TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…